Just what the doctor ordered: A soda tax?
June 11, 2006

BY JIM RITTER Health Reporter





The American Medical Association, meeting in Chicago this week, will consider a controversial proposal to fight obesity by taxing soda pop.

A committee of the influential doctors' group is recommending the AMA lobby for a "small" federal tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks, with proceeds going to anti-obesity efforts such as physical activity programs and healthier school meals.

The committee did not specify how high the tax should be. But a consumer group, Center for Science in the Public Interest, estimates that a 1 cent a can tax would raise $1.5 billion a year. That's more than the advertising budget of McDonald's.


ON THE AGENDA







These are among the proposals the American Medical Association will consider this week during its annual meeting at the Hilton Chicago:



Support a 50 percent reduction in salt in processed foods, fast foods and restaurant meals over the next decade.



Urge health insurance plans to cover stomach-stapling surgery for weight loss.



Oppose beer ads on college sports broadcasts.


Prepare a report summarizing video game research, including emotional and behavioral effects and addictive potential.



Push to ban smoking in all public places and workplaces.


Urge school health classes to "discuss the importance of routine pap smears in the prevention of cervical cancer."


Support mandatory school instruction on the dangers of Internet pornography.

During its five-day meeting, the AMA's governing House of Delegates can accept, reject, amend or table these and dozens of other proposals.



A 12-ounce can of Pepsi contains 150 calories of sugar or high fructose corn syrup -- the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar or a 3.2-ounce reduced-fat ice cream cone at McDonald's.

In the late 1970s, teens drank nearly twice as much milk as soft drinks; now they drink twice as much soft drinks as milk. Pop is "devoid of nutritional value" and contributes to increasing obesity rates, the AMA committee said.

The committee cited one study that found the odds of a child becoming obese increases 60 percent for each additional can of pop consumed each day. However, the committee report noted that other studies have found no link between soft drinks and obesity.

The AMA committee also endorsed soda pop taxes imposed by state and local governments. Diet pop, flavored milk and sugary fruit drinks should be exempt, the committee said.

Can Congress stomach this?



More than a dozen states have passed soft-drink taxes, but in recent years several states have repealed such taxes. States typically use soft-drink taxes for general purposes, rather than for obesity programs.

Taxing soft drinks is "misguided," said Kevin Keane of the American Beverage Association. "It will not move the needle one ounce in addressing health and wellness issues."

Doctors should know better than to target a single food, Keane said. "People consume a lot of calories every day. Why pick on one particular product?"

Of course, soda pop is not the only cause of the obesity epidemic. But pop makes an easy target because it has no redeeming nutritional value, said Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's a simply defined category of food that's pure junk."

The AMA's House of Delegates can accept, reject, amend or table the committee's recommendation. An AMA endorsement of a soft drink tax could be "extremely useful" to legislators who push such measures, Jacobson said.

However, he added that a federal soda pop tax is unlikely. "Tax increases are not popular with this administration or Congress," Jacobson said. "It would be dead on arrival."

jritter@suntimes.com




Control, control, control.

I'm sick of having everything taxed and banned to death. I'm not so sure our obesity isn't due to other things. Hormones used in cattle etc. They've already reported young girls starting their menstrual cycles years earlier than usual. There has to be some effect of these genetically engineered foods and hormone pumped animals. Doesn't seem much of anything is "safe" anymore. Fish and mercury etc.

Plus....sometimes there are other health issues or genetics in play.

Whatever it is.....I'm sick to death of having someone else tell me what I can and cannot do. Nobodys getting out of here alive. We're all going to go in one way or another. If I get enjoyment from something I don't need the government telling me I can't or taxing me on it when there's 1000's of other equally not perfect things.